Linguistic Evidence for Indian Origin of Indo-European Languages

Linguistic Evidence for Indian Origin of Indo-European Languages

[Extract from paper: Priyadarshi,P, “Recent Studies in Indian Archaeo-linguistics and Archaeo-genetics having bearing on Indian Prehistory”, presented at seminar Recent Achievements of Indian Archaeology, held at Department of Ancient Indian History and Archaeology, Lucknow University, Lucknow, India, 28-30 December 2010, during Joint Annual Conference of Indian Archaeology Society (44th Conference), Indian Society for Prehistoric and Quaternary Studies (38th Conference), Indian History and Culture Society (34th Conference)]

Recent linguistic research by Bernard Comrie (1) and by Dorian Fuller (2) point out that the Indio-European languages evolved at a place which had a developed agriculture. This conclusion they have derived from presence of agriculture related cognate words in the languages of this family separated widely by geography, but all having had their origin from one common ancestral language at a common place.

It has also been noted that often such ancient agricultural words of Indo-European family are shared by languages of Munda (Austro-Asiatic) as well as Dravidian families (see Fuller, 2003, p. 201; Fuller 2006, pp. 4, 15, 18, 35, 39, 40, 55; Fuller, 2007; Fuller, 2008). Whether these words entered from ancestors of Munda and Dravidian families into Indo-European or vice-versa, such examples indicate that the early Indo-European people lived with the Munda and Dravidian speakers before dispersal to Iran and Europe. By this time genetic studies have ruled out ancient presence of both Munda family and Dravidian family in the West Asia. Only place where the three could have come into contact with each other was India.

In fact Fuller is the first author to have said, on linguistic grounds, that India was an independent centre of framing. Moreover he notes that origins of Indian farming was different qualitatively from West Asian farming and was similar in many ways to African and Eastern North American origins of farming. It is not irrelevant to mention here that Indian origin of many DNA lineages currently found in Sub-Saharan Africa (male Y-chromosomal, F*, R1b, R1a, H, K2-M70, L; and female mtDNA, M1) have been found in Sub-Saharan Africa exhibiting a peri-LGM migration from India to East Africa via sea.

Fuller finds that “evidence based on both archaeo-botanical material and colloquial agricultural terms more parsimoniously postulates that early Dravidian had an epipaleolithic pre-agricultural heritage” and that it “originated near a South Asian core region”. This should be read with the fact that recently Indian epipalaeolithic (microlithic) has been dated 35,000 B.P. to 12,000 B.P. (3). Fuller’s assertion is an acceptance of India as the oldest place of farming culture. Fuller (2006) claims that there were several independent centres of plant domestication within the Indian peninsula by indigenous peoples. Fuller concedes an earlier and independent rice-Neolithic in Ganga Valley and western Orissa. He accepts that indigenous Indian plants, trees and vegetables have contributed words to Sanskrit (and other Indo-European languages). (4).

Bellwood, Higham and many such authors had suggested in the past that Austro-Asiatic speakers originated in South China, and from there they came to Southeast Asia, and from SE Asia to India with rice farming (5). This has not been supported by DNA studies, which suggests that eastern India was the source of the Austro-Asiatic speaking population, from where they migrated to Southeast Asia with haplogroup O2a (Y). (6) Other DNA studies have also confirmed Indigenous origin of Austro-Asiatic speaking tribes of India. (7). Figure [http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/7/47/figure/F1] DNA studies of rice, cattle, buffalo and mice too support an Indian origin of rice farming with subsequent migration to Southeast Asia.

Jerold Edmondson of Department of Linguistics, University of Texas, has done a large number of detailed studies based on linguistics as well as DNA, on Neolithic and human migrations towards east of India. He found that the Tai speakers of the Kradai branch of Austro-Asiatic language family migrated from India, and first settled in Southeast Asia long back. They were master cultivators and they took agriculture from India to Thailand and then from the latter to the Yunnan province of southwest China, and to South China by 10,000 ybp during Neolithic expansion. (8).

On the other hand Harvard scholar Michael Witzel has been struggling hard to prove that the agriculture related words in the Indo-European languages entered Sanskrit during the hypothetical stay of Indo-Aryans in Iran and then their contact with the Dravidian speakers in the Indus Valley area and Munda family tribes in the Ganga Valley. (9). Yet the presence of the same word in Indo-Aryan as well as European languages indicates that these words, even if had entered from some other languages, had entered Proto-Indo-European language in India before migration to Europe and Iran had started. This places origin of the family within India.

Thus Aryans, which is primarily speakers of a particular language family, can no longer be considered ‘pastoralists’. Moreover it is wrong to assume that pastorals are independent of agriculture. Renfrew (1990) pointed out that pastoral life is a part of agricultural society. He wrote: “The pastoral economy is usually symbiotic with the agricultural one as it has been shown that a major component of the diet of these pastoralists was bread. The practice of agriculture is thus a precondition of a pastoral economy.” (10). Added to this fact, the recently noted linguistic evidence as discussed above shows that the Aryans were farmers from the very beginning.

Earlier, Renfrew had claimed that Indo-Europeans were farmers from the very beginning, and that the Mehrgarh people and the Indus Valley people were Aryans i.e. speakers of Indo-European languages from the very onset of farming culture in these areas. (11). He had further claimed that an early Indo-European language had been in place in the north India stretching from the Ganga Valley to Mehrgarh when Mehrgarh civilization was emerging. (12). He wrote, “Certainly the assumption that the Aryas were recent ‘immigrants’ to India and their enemies were ‘aborigines’, has done much to distort our understanding of the archaeology of India and Pakistan.” (13).

Renfrew wrote, “We should in other words, consider seriously the possibility that the new religious and cultural synthesis which is represented by the Rigveda was essentially a product of soil of India and Pakistan, and that it was not imported, ready-made, on the back of steeds of Indo-Aryans. Of course it evolved while in contact with the developing cultures of other lands, most notably Iran, so that by a process of peer polity interaction, cultures and ideologies emerged which in many ways resembled each other. It is not necessary to suggest that one was borrowed, as it were, directly from the other.

“This hypothesis that early Indo-European languages were spoken with India and Pakistan and on the Iranian plateau at the sixth millennium BC has the merit of harmonising symmetrically with the theory for the origin of Indo-European languages of Europe. It also emphasises the continuity in the Indus valley and adjacent areas from the early Neolithic through to the foruit of the Indus Valley Civilization—a point which Jarrige has recently stressed. Moreover the continuity is seen to follow unbroken from that time across the Dark Age succeeding the collapse of the urban centres of the Indus Valley, so that features of that urban civilization persists, across a series of transformations, to form the basis of later Indian civilization. A number of scholars have previously developed these ideas of continuity.” (14).

Having said this, the new evidence changes some of Renfrew’s assumptions. While Renfrew thought Anatolia was the original home of the Indo-Europeans where they had developed the first farming culture, and from where they had migrated to Europe and North India by 6,000 B.C., present evidence indicates that India was the place of origin of the Indo-Europeans and an independently evolved centre of farming. Otherwise it is impossible to explain presence of farming related words of Austro-Asiatic and Dravidian origins in the European branch of Indo-European languages. Renfrew’s views about Anatolia may have proved wrong, yet his views on South Asia hold true in light of recent genetic evidence.

Genetic evidence as well as linguistic evidence has made it clear that both the Dravidian and the Austro-Asiatic languages and their speakers have evolved in India—the Dravidians in the southernmost part and Austro-Asiatic in the eastern part of the South Asia. The current findings about early Dravidian languages contradict Renfrew and many other authors who had suggested in past that the place of origin of Dravidian was in West Asia from Proto-Elamite after 10,000 B.P., originally proposed by McAlpin. (15).

We can now have a look at some of the farming related words in the Indo-European languages:

We can now have a look at some of the farming related words in the Indo-European languages:

  1. Harvest (English), karbitas (to harvest, Proto-Germanic), kerpu (Lithuanian), kerp (PIE), kripANa (knife, Sanskrit).
  2. Sow (E.), sawan (Old English), sero and sevi (Latin, to sow), semen (Latin, seed), seju and seti (Lithuanian, to sow), *se and seh (PIE, to sow), Santhal, Ho and Munda si, siu (to plow), and Munda Kharia silo (‘to plow’), sA- (Sanskrit, to sow), sita (Sk. a furrow of a ploughshare), sulh (Old English, a furrow or ploughshare), sira (Sk., plough, a plough ox). Related to this group of words are *sehm (PIE, grain), sasa (Sanskrit; sasam in Rig-Veda), sasya (Sanskrit, food, seed, grain, herb), sas (Kashmiri, beans, peas, lentils), sas (Bangla, grain, fruit), sasa (Oriya, kernel, nutritious part), sabz (Iranian, green vegetable), sem (Hindi, beans), *sito- and *sitya- (PIE, ‘corn’), sitiyam (Sanskrit, corn, ploughed), siri and siri (Khowar, barley), and sili (Kalasha of Hindukush, millet) are all related. Munda family language Sora has saro, sar (paddy) and Munda and Kharia have –sro and –srA (rice, as compound words in ko-soro and ko-sra) are also related. Words sro, sre and sru meaning ‘rice’ in some Khmer (Cambodia) dialects are obvious cognates of Munda –sro, Sora saro etc meaning rice. On the other hand the root is also found in Caucasian—Chechen sos ‘oats’, Eastern Caucasian susV ‘rye’ which are millets. Witzel thinks that these non-IE languages borrowed these words while Indo-European was passing across their territories. This is only partly correct–the direction of migration was from India to West Asia, not from Central Asia to India, as DNAs reveal.
  3. Plough (E.), *plogo (Proto-Germanic), plugas (Lithuanian) and langala (Sanskrit) are cognates. The ultimate origin of the words is from Munda family (Witzel).[1] Fuller writes, “Of interest in this regard is historical linguistic analysis for widespread cognate terms for plough in Indo-Aryan, Dravidian and Munda languages which may derive from early borrowing between these groups or from a common substrate, perhaps from the Harappan zone (Southworth, 2005, p. 80; Witzel, 1999, pp. 29–30).”[2]
  4. Pita (English, bread), petta (Greek, bread), peptos (Greek, cooked), pita (bread, Modern Hibrew), pizza (Italian, a cooked food), pastry, pasta (Italian), pittha (Bihari, a cake made of rice flour), paiSHTa (Sanskrit, meaning cake; derivative of Sanskrit piSHTa meaning ground or flour, and pis meaning ‘to grind’). English ‘paste’ (dough) is related. ‘Pastry’ may be related.
  5. Pestle (E.) related to Old French pestel from Latin pistillum (to pounder, to pestle) from PIE *pis-to-, to grind; Sanskrit pish- (HK piS “to grind”), pishta (HK piSTa grinded), pIs (Hindi to grind). 
  6. Mill (E.) from Old English mylen; Latin mola, millstone and molere to grind; PIE mel / mol / ml  to grind; German muhle and Sanskrit musala (grinder) are from the same root. In Thai language “mill-stone” is called moh. In Thai language mo:h is the word for ‘mill-stone’ which also means ‘to grind’.
  7. ‘Grind’ (E.), O. E. grindan, P. Germanic grindanan, PIE *ghren, *ghreu-, *ghen,  (?*grendh-) all have same meaning i.e. to grind. PIE *gher and *gherzdh mean ‘barley’. The Sanskrit word godhuma, Persian gandum and Tamil godhumai all meaning ‘wheat’ seem to have originated from the same root. This implies use of grinding by PIE speakers. Munda guru, Santhal and Kherwa guRgu (both meaning ‘grinding stone’), Thai gruaam (to grind), gro:hng (mortar), gra deuuang (stamp-mill, mortar) are all related with the roots meaning ‘grinding’.
  8. Acre> agri- from P. Germanic akraz, PIE agros field, Sk. ajra, ajras field. It is likely that Sanskrit kriS to pull, to cultivate, may have some relation with PIE agros.

9. Sanskrit sUpa and English ‘soup’ have same meaning, pronunciation and etymology. They are from PIE *sub- derived from another PIE base seue, ‘to take liquid food’. Proto-Germanic base *supp- and English ‘supper’ are cognates to these. Tamil sappara may be a cognate. Iranian sabzi meaning ‘vegetable curry or soup’ is a cognate. Witzel correlates Iranian sabz- (vegetable) with Old Sanskrit sapa- (drifted reed), Old Iranian sapar-ku, Rosani (Pamir language) sabec ‘beans’, Lithuanian sapas ‘stalk’ and English dialect haver ‘stalk’, which all are possibly cognates of Sanskrit supa.

10.  Bread (English), bhrajj (Sanskrit, pan cake), bhrijj (Sanskrit, the act of baking, roasting or frying). Other cognates are Old Irish bruth ‘to heat’, French braser ‘to burn’, Germanic brese ‘hot coal’, Old English beorma ‘yeast’, Old High German brato ‘to roast meat’, English brew,  PIE *bhreu- ‘to brew’ etc.

11.  Sanskrit KshIra meaning ‘milk’ and ‘a porridge made of rice or millets in milk’ (derived from Sanskrit root-word ghas : Monier Williams), its Hindi form khir, and Hindi ghee (from Sanskrit ghrita, purified butter) are derived from PIE ghwer. From PIE ghwer are also derived English burn, brandy, therm- etc. It shows some form of cooking process during PIE stage.

12.  Cook, coc (Old English), cocus (Vulgar Latin), coquus (Latin), from PIE pekw- (cooking). Related to this PIE root is Sanskrit pach- and pak-, Hindi pakAnA and pakwan.  

13.  Candy/ candid (English), qand (Persian), khanda (Sanskrit, sugar). These all are possibly from Tamil kantu (candy), kattu (to harden).

14.  Meter (E.), measure (E.), matra (Sk.), metre (Fr.), metron (Gk.), Old English mete, PIE *mat/*met. Many food items, which were measured are from this root, and they include: Sanskrit masura, masUrikA, mas*, mishta etc, English meat, Hindi mItha (lump sugar) etc. Sanskrit mASa (a small unit of weight used by jwellers), which means a pulse (oorad) too, is from the same root.   

15.  English ‘cotton’, Sanskrit kartta-na (weaving), Hindi kata-na (weaving), Munda koTNe (pillow) and Santhal kotre (pillow) are most likely from the same root. Persian kurta (upper garment), Proto-Germanic kalithas (cloth) and English ‘cloth’ are also related. Another set of related words is kapara (Hindi, cloth), kappaTam (Tamil, cloth), karpAsa (Sanskrit, cotton).

16.  Pot (E.), potus (L. drinking vessel), pAtra (Sk. pAtra, drinking vessel, MW, p. 612). In sanskrit patra means leaf (Greek pter). Large leaves were earlier used as dish plates in India. Presence of this word widely in IE languages clearly indicates that the Proto-Indo-Europeans had pottery before they migrated.

17.  Wheel (E.), cycle (E.), chakra (Sanskrit), charkha (Persian) and PIE k(w)el probably pertain to pottery-wheel.

18.  We get cognate words for cow, pig, goat, sheep and mouse in almost all of the Indo-European languages.

19.  Fuller (2008) gives a list of cognates for cotton, spindle and weaving in Indo-European and Austro-Asiatic languages, indicating that Proto-Indo-European as well as Proto-Austro-Asiatic languages had enough contact for exchange of words. This place could only have been in India, and not West Asia or Central Asia. Words which are related with weaving but are found in Indo-Aryan, European, Dravidian and Austro-Asiatic languages are: tantu (Sk., fiber), tantra (Sk., loom), tAna (Sk., fiber, tone, tension), tanti and tatamA (Hindi, weaver), tendon (E.), tentacle (E.) tendril (E.), tent (E.), tenter (E., loom), tenet (E.), tonti (Juang, weaver), dendra (Telgu, a weaver caste); tay (Bonda, to weave), tor (Thai, to weave), tan (Kharia, to weave), thai:n (Khasi, to weave), tan (Alak, Lave and Niahon, to weave);

20.  tUla (Sk., cotton), tUlika (Sk., brush), tula (Munda-Juang; cotton, feather, hair), tol (Old Mon; cotton, hair, feather), tuy (Tamil, cotton).

Having proved that the Indo-Europeans were farmers, we need to settle their place of evolution. There were only two places where farming evolved the earliest. Both can be claimed to be the place of origin of Indo-Europeans. One is Anatolia (Turkey, West Asia) and the second is India. Central Asia being a cold desert and grassland combination can hardly harbor pastoralist populations but not farming. Nor can it have large growth of population to force migration. All the prehistoric migrations have taken place from tropical to temperate region (genetic studies).

Conclusion: We note a large number of words from Austro-Asiatic (Munda family) and Dravidian families in the Indo-European languages located as far away as West Europe. This is a big list. Some of them have been mentioned above. This could be only possible if the Indo-European journey started in India, having evolved over ages in neighborhood of these languages. Hence we can conclude, on the basis of linguistic analysis that the Indo-European languages evolved in India from where they migrated out to various regions of the world.


[1] Witzel, Michael, The linguistic history of some Indian domestic plants, J Biosciences 2009, 34(6): 829-833. “Fulltext” of this article is available at  http://www.ias.ac.in/jbiosci/dec2009/Witzel_fulltext.pdf. We shall refer that article as Witzel, Fulltext, 2009.

[2] Fuller, 2006, p. 15.

19. Fuller (2008) gives a list of cognates for cotton, spindle and weaving in Indo-European and Austro-Asiatic languages, indicating that Proto-Indo-European as well as Proto-Austro-Asiatic languages had enough contact for exchange of words. This place could only have been in India, and not West Asia or Central Asia. Words which are related with weaving but are found in Indo-Aryan, European, Dravidian and Austro-Asiatic languages are: tantu (Sk., fiber), tantra (Sk., loom), tAna (Sk., fiber, tone, tension), tanti and tatamA (Hindi, weaver), tendon (E.), tentacle (E.) tendril (E.), tent (E.), tenter (E., loom), tenet (E.), tonti (Juang, weaver), dendra (Telgu, a weaver caste); tay (Bonda, to weave), tor (Thai, to weave), tan (Kharia, to weave), thai:n (Khasi, to weave), tan (Alak, Lave and Niahon, to weave).

20. tUla (Sk., cotton), tUlika (Sk., brush), tula (Munda-Juang; cotton, feather, hair), tol (Old Mon; cotton, hair, feather), tuy (Tamil, cotton).

Having proved that the Indo-Europeans were farmers, we need to settle their place of evolution. There were only two places where farming evolved the earliest. Both can be claimed to be the place of origin of Indo-Europeans. One is Anatolia (Turkey, West Asia) and the second is India. Central Asia being a cold desert and grassland combination can hardly harbor pastoralist populations but not farming. Nor can it have large growth of population to force migration. All the prehistoric migrations have taken place from tropical to temperate region (genetic studies).

Conclusion: We note a large number of words from Austro-Asiatic (Munda family) and Dravidian families in the Indo-European languages located as far away as West Europe. This is a big list. Some of them have been mentioned above. This could be only possible if the Indo-European journey started in India, having evolved over ages in neighborhood of these languages. Hence we can conclude, on the basis of linguistic analysis that the Indo-European languages evolved in India from where they migrated out to various regions of the world.

REFERENCES

(1) Comrie, Bernard, “Farming dispersal in Europe and the spread of the Indo-European language family”, in Bellwood, Peter and Renfrew, Colin (Eds.); Examining The Farming/language Dispersal Hypothesis, CUP Archives, Cambridge, 2003.

(2) Fuller, D. Q., Agricultural Origins and Frontiers in South Asia: A Working Synthesis, J World Prehist 2006,  20:1–86. [http://www.homepages.ucl.ac.uk/~tcrndfu/articles/JWP20.pdf]Also see ———-, “An agricultural perspective on Dravidian historical linguistics: archaeological crop packages, livestock and Dravidian crop vocabulary”, in Bellwood, Peter and Renfrew, Colin (Eds.); Examining The Farming/language Dispersal Hypothesis: (191-213), 2003, p. 204.

(3) Petraglia, M. et al, Population increase and environmental deterioration correspond with microlithic innovations in South Asia ca. 35,000 years ago, PNAS 2009 Aug., cgi doi 10.1073, pnas.0810842106. Population expansion in 35,000 years back India is an evidence of possible proto-farming life.  [http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/07/17/0810842106.full.pdf+html]

(4) Fuller, D. Q.; Agricultural Origins and Frontiers in South Asia: A Working Synthesis, J World Prehist 2006, 20:1–86.

(5) Higham, C., Languages and Farming Dispersals: Austroasiatic Languages and Rice Cultivation, Bellwood, P. and Renfrew, C. (Eds.), Examining the farming/language dispersal hypothesis, Cambridge: The McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, 2003.

(6)Kumar, V. et al, Y-chromosome evidence suggests a common paternal heritage of Austro-Asiatic populations, BMC Evol Biol. 2007; 7: 47. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/7/47

(7) Chaubey, G. et al; Phylogeography of mtDNA haplogroup R7 in the Indian peninsula, BMC Evol Biol 2008, 8: 227. Maji, S. et al, Distribution of Mitochondrial DNA Macrohaplogroup N in India with Special Reference to Haplogroup R and its Sub-Haplogroup U, Int J Hum Jenet 2008, 8(1-2): 85-96.  Kivisild, T. et al, The genetic heritage of the earliest settlers persists both in Indian tribal and caste populations, Am J Hum Genet 2003 Feb, 72 (2) : 313-32, p. 313.

(8) http://ling.uta.edu/~jerry/pol.pdf

(9) Witzel, Michael, The linguistic history of some Indian domestic plants, J Biosciences 2009, 34(6): 829-833. “Fulltext” of this article is available at  http://www.ias.ac.in/jbiosci/dec2009/Witzel_fulltext.pdf. We shall refer that article as Witzel, Fulltext, 2009.

(10) Renfrew, Colin, Archaeology and Language. The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins,  CUP Archive,  Cambridge, 1990, p. 198.

(11) Renfrew, Colin, Archaeology and Language. The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins,  CUP Archive,  Cambridge, 1990, pp. 190, 192, 195-6.

(12) Ibid, p. 190.

(13) Renfrew, Colin, Archaeology and Language. The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins,  CUP Archive, Cambridge, 1990, p. 195.

(14) Ibid. p. 196.

(15) McAlpin, David W., Elamite and Dravidian: Further Evidence of Relationship, Current Anthropology 1975, 16(1): 105-115. ———, Proto-Elamo-Dravidian: The Evidence and its Implications, The American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia, 1981.

(16) Witzel, Michael, The linguistic history of some Indian domestic plants, J Biosciences 2009, 34(6): 829-833. “Fulltext” of this article is available at  http://www.ias.ac.in/jbiosci/dec2009/Witzel_fulltext.pdf. We shall refer that article as Witzel, Fulltext, 2009

(17) Fuller, 2006, p. 15

18 thoughts on “Linguistic Evidence for Indian Origin of Indo-European Languages

  1. Very nice article. I was surprised that migration from east to west..unlike more popular beliefs..but it has been supported with certain facts. Can you please explain more about Munda and santhal languages..( geographical area where its prevalent).

  2. This is from a research article,

    http://www.springerlink.com/content/n55wr275542r2444/fulltext.pdf

    Whenever i read an article on india they always suggest that their is CLEAR DISTINCTION BETWEEN north and south indian;

    ”the most striking feature of the genetic structure of South
    Asian populations is the clear separation of the Indus
    valley and southern India populations”

    Can you further expand on this, as i was lead to beleive that north and south indians where the same and their was correlation between the two. What genome or haplogroups are prenset in both groups, or is the commentary on this article laced with euro centric views, and the reality is that indus and souther population DO have and always have had correltations. Because at the moment it seems to suggest that the two population are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.would you agree with this.

    The rest of the article;

    We have analysed (Illumina 650K SNPs) over 320 new
    samples from South and Central Asia and the Caucasus,
    together with the publicly available databases (HGDP
    panel and our published data set of ~600 Eurasian samples) and illustrated the power of full genome analyses
    by addressing two specific questions. (i) What is the natur e o f g en e t i c cont inui t y and d i s cont inui t y be tw e en
    South Asia, Middle East and Central Asia? (ii) What are
    the genetic origins of the Munda speakers of India? We
    use principal component and structure-like analyses to
    reveal the structure in the genome wide SNP data. The
    most striking feature of the genetic structure of South
    Asian populations is the clear separation of the Indus
    valley and southern India populations. The genetic component prevalent in the latter region is marginal in the
    former and absent outside South Asia. By contrast, the
    component ubiquitous to Indus valley is also present
    ( ~ 3 0 – 4 0 % ) amo n g I n d o – E u r o p e a n s p e a k e r s f r om
    Ganges valley and Dravidic speakers in southern India.
    Furthermore, this component can also be found in Central Asia and the Caucasus as well as in Middle East.

    • Chaubey is a confused person. He thinks in Risley’s way that everyone came to India from outside. Thus he twists and misinterprets data in such a way that someone not interested in investigating the matter will never know the manipulation. All of his articles after Chaubey 2006, are arbitrary.

      The thing is the Indus DNA are bound to resemble the Central and West Asian and finally European DNAs. Because it was from Indus that people migrated to these areas outside India. R1a1a and J2b are examples which migrated out from Indus-Punjap region to Central Asia and Europe, and West Asia and Europe respectively.

  3. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19077280

    In this article is clearly states the south indian population derives form the european population how is this ?…in the diagrams provided in the link, when they state the european component are they biased, do they actually mean north indian?…IF so then this research article is clearly flawed, as it suggests the onset the of aryan invasion, however if the european component they are talking of is actually north indian and not EUROPEAN, then it clearly suggest the opposite. Which one is it?

  4. Bamshad, Stoneking, Semino, Cruchiani etc are some of the authors who are Euro/West Asia centric and often misinterpret data. They may speak out some conclusion which does not at all accrue from those data.

    Any resemblence of indians, whether south or north, with central Asians, Europeans and West Asians is because the Indians migrated to those areas. Hence genetic resemblences will remain there.

    Please have a look at my mice migration blog. Because there no Aryan or non-Aryan among the mice, that analysis is unbiased, and everyone equivocally says that mice migrated out of India with farming going to all corners of the world.

    I never read Bamshad’s article. Better read Sahoo, 2006; Trivedi 2008; Sengupta, 2006 etc.

    • thankyou again.Your information has helped so much, and you along with others will be fully credited and honoured in brining intellectual truth and reversal of colonial educaiton and government.If you dont mind we will post links to your articles, in that way they have the information at hand. At the moment bad teachers and wrong education are teaching indians.

  5. Hi i wanted to know if the northern route out of africa has been largely abandoned by mainstream for the single migration out of africa down the coastal route of india?

    What is your own opinion, that asia, was populated by several waves from north africa, or by just one single wave going down the southern coastal route?

    Thanks.

    • Mainstrean View: Single, early migration out of Africa by coastal route, to India then anywhere else form India.

      As far as evidence is concerned, no wave came out of North Africa (if we ignore more recent waves; Metspalu, 2004). The only wave which came out of Africa was from Eastern Horn of Afric to India. However, there is evidence that many waves back migrated from India to East Africa.

      Thanks

      • During the past couple of months i have been reading more and more on the independent origins of Indian domestication and agriculture. In your opinion which is the oldest centres of agriculture, is it the ganges, vidhyann plains or the indus valley.

        From what i can gather, it seems like the ganges and the vidhyan are older than the indus, and that migration from these farmers took place into the indus valley. Which from then on, spread into west asia, central asia, north africa, eastern europe finally into west europe.

        Also i have formed an opinion from present day evidence, that dravidian language was spoken throughtout india, along with Indian munda speakers of the north east, and that the infusion of the start of agriculture, which out of dravidian and munda speakers, started the creation of north indian languages, or in the west its known as Indo european. But clearly the emphasis is on the Indo rather than the european.

        Genome has revealed that all Indian populations are indigenous to india, is their any merit in my assumption that from dravidian and munda indians the creation of north indian languages started, from which a group left india into west asia,, and beyond carrying this north indian language group with them which then became INDO EUROPEAN.

      • This view will will need revision. We will have to trace evolution of languages since the earliest when Dravidian, Indo-European, Austro-Asiatic, Austronesian, Afro-Asiatic, Bantu, Altaic and Uralic were all one and spoken in India about 70,000 years back.

  6. Are munda speakers from north east india or from further south from southeast asia? I know their is evidence to suggest both native origins in india, an din southeast asia. In your learned opinion which way do you think the migration took place, from india further south or from southeast asia, into north east india?

    I found this article online, what is your opinion on this? thanks.

    The Austroasiatic Munda Population from India and Its Enigmatic Origin: A HLA Diversity Study

    Maria Eugenia Riccio,1* José Manuel Nunes,1 Melissa Rahal,1,2 Barbara Kervaire,1,2 Jean-Marie Tiercy,2 and Alicia Sanchez-Mazas1
    1 Laboratory of Anthropology, Genetics, and Peopling History (AGP), Laboratory of Anthropology, Genetics, and Peopling History (AGP), Anthropology Unit, Department of Genetics and Evolution, University of Geneva, Switzerland.
    2 National Reference Laboratory for Histocompatibility, Transplantation Immunology Unit, Geneva University Hospital, 24 rue Micheli-du-Crest, 1211 Geneva 14, Switzerland.
    * Correspondence to: Maria Eugenia Riccio, Laboratory of Anthropology, Genetics, and Peopling History (AGP), Laboratory of Anthropology, Genetics, and Peopling History (AGP), Anthropology Unit, Department of Genetics and Evolution, 12 rue Gustave-Revilliod, 1227 University of Geneva, Switzerland. E-mail: Eugenia.Riccio@unige.ch.

    Abstract
    The Austroasiatic linguistic family disputes its origin between two geographically distant regions of Asia, India, and Southeast Asia, respectively. As genetic studies based on classical and gender-specific genetic markers provided contradictory results to this debate thus far, we investigated the HLA diversity (HLA-A, -B, and -DRB1 loci) of an Austroasiatic Munda population from Northeast India and its relationships with other populations from India and Southeast Asia. Because molecular methods currently used to test HLA markers often provide ambiguous results due to the high complexity of this polymorphism, we applied two different techniques (reverse PCR-SSO typing on microbeads arrays based on Luminex technology, and PCR-SSP typing) to type the samples. After validating the resulting frequency distributions through the original statistical method described in our companion article (Nunes et al. 2011), we compared the HLA genetic profile of the sampled Munda to those of other Asiatic populations, among which Dravidian and Indo-European-speakers from India and populations from East and Southeast Asia speaking languages belonging to different linguistic families.

    We showed that the Munda from Northeast India exhibit a peculiar genetic profile with a reduced level of HLA diversity compared to surrounding Indian populations. They also exhibit less diversity than Southeast Asian populations except at locus DRB1. Several analyses using genetic distances indicate that the Munda are much more closely related to populations from the Indian subcontinent than to Southeast Asian populations speaking languages of the same Austroasiatic linguistic family. On the other hand, they do not share a closer relationship with Dravidians compared with Indo-Europeans, thus arguing against the idea that the Munda share a common and ancient Indian origin with Dravidians. Our results do not favor either a scenario where the Munda would be representative of an ancestral Austroasiatic population giving rise to an eastward Austroasiatic expansion to Southeast Asia. Rather, their peculiar genetic profile is better explained by a decrease in genetic diversity through genetic drift from an ancestral population having a genetic profile similar to present-day Austroasiatic populations from Southeast Asia (thus suggesting a possible southeastern origin), followed by intensive gene flow with neighboring Indian populations. This conclusion is in agreement with archaeological and linguistic information. The history of the Austroasiatic family represents a fascinating example where complex interactions among culturally distinct human populations occurred in the past,

  7. Is Haplogroup R (Y-DNA) from india, as its claimed on wiki (not the most reliable) to be of central asia origin, however r1 and r1b are of indian origin, then surely R must also be of indian origin and not from central asia or west asia. Would you agree? Going back to wikipedia, the diagram which they have to illustrate human migration is Very misleading.

    Also further to your reply, i came across this article which may add further weight to an indian origin of AA speakers. (Article below) If M (mtDNA) is from india then N must also be of indian origin correct?

    If modern man did originate in india, and dispersed in either direction east and west after the toba explosion, in your mind and this is the QUESTION;

    Is their a possibility of ACTUALLY finding someone which Haplogroup L0 (mtDNA) in indian tribals, a surviving lost tribe after the explosion who have survived to present day? (if you have time i love would an answer on the possibility, thanks)

    ___________________________________________________________________________
    Mitochondrial DNA evidence supports northeast Indian origin of the aboriginal Andamanese in the Late Paleolithic.
    Hua-Wei Wang, Bikash Mitra, Tapas Kumar Chaudhuri, Malliya Gounder Palanichamy, Qing-Peng Kong, Ya-Ping Zhang
    Laboratory for Conservation and Utilization of Bio-resource, Yunnan University, Kunming 650091, Yunnan Province, China.

    In view of the geographically closest location to Andaman archipelago, Myanmar was suggested to be the origin place of aboriginal Andamanese. However, for lacking any genetic information from this region, which has prevented to resolve the dispute on whether the aboriginal Andamanese were originated from mainland India or Myanmar. To solve this question and better understand the origin of the aboriginal Andamanese, we screened for haplogroups M31 (from which Andaman-specific lineage M31a1 branched off) and M32 among 846 mitochondrial DNAs (mtDNAs) sampled across Myanmar. As a result, two Myanmar individuals belonging to haplogroup M31 were identified, and completely sequencing the entire mtDNA genomes of both samples testified that the two M31 individuals observed in Myanmar were probably attributed to the recent gene flow from northeast India populations. Since no root lineages of haplogroup M31 or M32 were observed in Myanmar, it is unlikely that Myanmar may serve as the source place of the aboriginal Andamanese. To get further insight into the origin of this unique population, the detailed phylogenetic and phylogeographic analyses were performed by including additional 7 new entire mtDNA genomes and 113 M31 mtDNAs pinpointed from South Asian populations, and the results suggested that Andaman-specific M31a1 could in fact trace its origin to northeast India. Time estimation results further indicated that the Andaman archipelago was likely settled by modern humans from northeast India via the land-bridge which connected the Andaman archipelago and Myanmar around the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM), a scenario in well agreement with the evidence from linguistic and palaeoclimate studies.

  8. Genome scan clearly shows that austro-asiatic people of india have 1/4 southeast asian admixture
    and this came from southeast asian. It also shows that austro-asiatic people of india are closer to indo-european and dravidians.

  9. And because indian austro-asiatic have 1/4 southeast asian admixture, and are more similar to indo-european and dravidian, this only further proofs indian are not the origin of O2a and it is very unlikely that O2a originated 65000 years ago from india. Since the highest diversity of O and O2a are in southeast asia and east asia (southern china). If O2a originated in india, you would expect high diversity of O2 by now, like east asia and southeast asia have with O2a1 and O2b.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s